User:FT2/Dispute resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

This policy describes how to resolve disputes with other editors. Wikipedia is not about winning, nor is advocacy or a combative approach acceptable. The community has many ways to approach disagreements, but if both parties act poorly it is harder to untangle the problem. For this reason, if editors cannot agree despite trying, then each of them should follow suggestions in this page intended to find a way to resolve the dispute, rather than getting heated.

Issues within disputes are often categorized as content issues where people do not agree on how articles and the facts in them should be written, and conduct issues where editors are acting inappropriately (for example edit warring, playing games, disrupting or not listening to others).

While disagreements over articles and their contents are expected, users should only ever engage in good conduct even if they disagree; improper conduct or fighting to get ones way adds nothing positive and ultimately leads to sanctions such as blocks or bans. The aim of all dispute resolution on Wikipedia is to find a workable solution to the dispute, even if it means removing those who cannot edit collaboratively.

A range of issues, including some more serious matters can be directed to specialist teams and noticeboards. Examples include harassment, sock-puppetry, edit warring, vandalism, copyright problems, breaches of existing sanctions, and gross misconduct by administrators. (See specialist teams below).

The "dispute resolution sidebar" (right) has direct filing links for many kinds of request.
For sensitive issues, or issues involving privacy and non-public information, see sensitive and privacy-related issues below.

Wikipedia disputes[edit]

Disputes only exist on Wikipedia for two reasons, described as "conduct" and "content":

Dispute issue Core principles
An editor is acting (or seems to be acting) inappropriately.
"Conduct issues"
There is a difference of opinion between editors how something should appear or be handled in an article.
"Content issues"
So if you feel inappropriately treated and cannot resolve it by yourself
In any dispute - generally assume good faith, be openminded, try to defuse the issue, discuss and explain, be guided by community norms, seek help, and use dispute resolution.

Sometimes content and conduct issues frequently happen together, if a user engages in improper conduct during a content dispute. Sometimes resolving the content issue removes the basis for poor conduct, and sometimes addressing the conduct issue allows productive debate on the content. While administrators may help with improper conduct, disagreements about content are always resolved by open discussion.[1]

In Wikipedia discussions, users are forbidden from importing their personal issues from outside (including any advocacy), forbidden from attacking other users (calling it "robust debate" or "speaking ones mind" does not change an attack to a valid debate), and forbidden from breaching other user's privacy or posting their off-wiki communications on the wiki (see WP:OUTING).

Avoiding disputes[edit]

Shortcut

Before going further, try to avoid the dispute or resolve disagreements early on.

Focus on the editorial process, not people[edit]

It is human nature when people act badly, disruptively, or offensively, or do not listen, that other people will react. On Wikipedia this is inappropriate. You should curtail this natural temptation, and address the issue from a content and policy point in the first instance.

  • Treat their actions in good faith - assume they are sincere editors whose views differ from yours, and that the two of you have to explore ways to share insights and work together.
  • Wikipedia articles can often cover multiple significant viewpoints not just one person's. Consider whether their point may have something to say.
  • Remember Wikipedia is not about winning, and that your personal views (and theirs) should be "left at the door".
  • Point out which norms support your approach to the question, or ways that the two views can be respected.

Handling offensive, warring, and disruptive editors[edit]

Main page: Wikipedia:Edit warring

If another user does attack you or is offensive, the Golden Rule is, do not be tempted to respond by poor conduct or edit warring back. Do not respond to provocation or harassment, or untruthful claims. Other users will see what's going on after a while, and many edit warriors try to make you act badly so they can "muddy the water" and claim you started it. Don't give them the chance!

You can respond in four ways that are sanctioned by the community:

  1. Engage in dialog to try and resolve the matter, if you can.
  2. Seek input from neutral uninvolved users who have no ties to the dispute using the processes below. Be prepared to show good evidence that the user is acting in a clearly inappropriate manner, by comparing their behavior to expected policies and guidelines.
  3. Understand that Wikipedia requires patience. The wiki develops over time and some disputes will be ongoing for weeks or months before finally resolved. Sometimes the view you hold won't be the one that endures. Don't take it to heart if you cannot quickly resolve the matter. Keep acting properly and as needed, seek help.
  4. Especially if you are getting stressed do not act up in response. Wikipedia is a community undertaking. Take a break or pass the matter over for administrator help.

Honest editing[edit]

As volunteers, each individual edits, improves, and helps wherever they wish. As community members each individual is obligated to work in a reasonable and honest way with others, to seek wider input and advice as needed, to be open to others' views, to avoid disruptive or obstructive behavior and other major breaches of accepted norms, and to engage in discussions with the aim of helping the project. This is especially important when users disagree.

Users wishing to edit should keep to a collaborative consensus approach of collegial dialog. Attempts to subvert or bias discussions or to influence them improperly, for example by canvassing, sock-puppetry (abuse of multiple accounts) or gaming, are taken extremely seriously and can lead to a block or ban on a first occasion.

Supportiveness[edit]

Users should try to act towards other users in a generally supportive manner. This involves listening, trying to find common ground, avoiding inflaming disputes or polarizing discussions, working from unselfish project principles, and a generally calm, productive, collegial style.

Newcomers, who may not know the site's norms, should be supported and helped rather than "bitten", although newcomers editing very improperly may find themselves rapidly warned or sanctioned.

Users who do not feel inclined to help others are expected at the least not to make others' positive activities harder or less rewarding by engaging in difficult conduct or poor and ungraceful social manners. Especially, users joining a dispute should do so with a view to helping those involved find ways to resolve it, and should not act in ways that "make it worse".

Conduct in a dispute[edit]

Users in dispute are expected to try honest dialog aimed at resolution, or if that fails or the issue is severe, they should seek uninvolved non-partisan help from the rest of the community. Disruptive activities and editing in lieu of calm resolution are not appropriate. Even if one user in a dispute behaves unreasonably, others are expected to try and resolve this calmly, then seek progressively more help.

Comments made during a dispute should focus on discerning what is right and best for the project. They should reflect Wikipedia norms and policies rather than personal agendas, advocacy or battleground mindsets, focus on addressing any Wikipedia issues, and avoid being reactive.

Handling incivility[edit]

Main pages: Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks

Wikipedia's policies on inappropriate conduct cover ordinary impoliteness and sarcasm, through to more reprehensible forms of conduct such as harassment, personal attacks, and "outing".

Low grade and sporadic antisocial conduct ("incivility") is best ignored rather than rising to the bait. Users should focus on the Wikipedia issue and set aside personal issues. More serious or persistent issues should be raised, first with the user and then if needed by obtaining wider input.

Disruptive, deceptive, vandalistic, and tendentious editing is strictly forbidden. These covers all forms of behavior where the user prevents good quality editing from taking place, or persists in causing productive discussion to be derailed. This does not affect removal of inappropriate material on good policy-based grounds. However an established disagreement between editors over possibly poor quality edits should usually be met by discussion and attempt to agree what is best for the project following usual project norms, rather than edit warring or battleground mindsets.

Focus on content, not people[edit]

Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Editing policy

The most important first step is to focus on content, not on personalities. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.

When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability.

Always explain your changes in the edit summary to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the talk page of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary. If your edit gets reverted, you can discuss the reversion with other editors on the talk page.

In summary: Don't take others' actions personally. Explain to them what you're doing, and always be prepared to change your mind.

Stay cool[edit]

Shortcut

Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it. Don't worry! You can always fix the problem later. (You can go back to the page history of an article at any time, to find the version of the article that you last worked on, and compare that to the current version to see whether there are still things that you'd like put in or taken out.)

Take a long term view. In due course you will probably be able to return and carry on editing it, when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. In the meantime the disputed article will evolve, other editors may become interested and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again.

This is particularly helpful when disputing with new users as it gives them a chance to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policy and culture. Focus your contributions on another article where you can make constructive progress.

Discuss with the other party[edit]

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
Further information: Wikipedia:Negotiation

When discussing an issue, remember to stay cool. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, don't respond likewise. Take the other editor's perspective into account. Assume that an editor is acting in good faith until it's absolutely clear that they're not. It's at that point where you should consider dispute resolution processes that involve third parties.

Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community. Not discussing will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately (or even remotely) successful, shows that you are trying to find a solution.

Also consider negotiating a truce or compromise. This is also important if you intend to solicit outside opinions because it allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of constant ongoing edits.

Resolving disputes[edit]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests summarizes the dispute processes mentioned here, and how to use each of them.

In almost all cases you should first try and resolve it yourself, then seek help if needed. Which steps you choose and in what order depends on the nature of the dispute and the preferences of people involved.

  Content issue Conduct issue
Process Try to resolve it it yourself, then either or both of: seeking help in reaching agreement (mediation), or seeking wider input into the content issue from other users. ... and at some point use formal processes to put an end to the problem.
Role of others To offer a neutral view on the issues, the underlying principles, the dispute itself, and the approaches that would best meet Wikipedia's applicable policies and guidelines. ... and also to address conduct issues that may be occurring and (if needed) preventing disruption.
Final decisions? There is no final "decision maker" or "editorial board" who will unilaterally say what the content should be. All content matters are resolved by policy-based consensus and discussion only, however long it takes. Misconduct is never acceptable, so a bright line will ultimately be drawn and enforced.
Role of
administrators		 Administrators act purely as "any other user", they have no special "say" in the content matter. However if any users are disruptive and prevent progress they can be addressed and (if they persist) may be warned or removed. To advise, assist, and (if needed) warn and address the conduct issue.

Ways to resolve disputes yourself or get wider opinions are listed below, followed by more formal processes related to conduct issues. Finally, specialist teams exist for email and third party communications (Wikimedia volunteer email team (OTRS)) and for privacy and very serious conduct problems (the Functionaries team and Arbitration Committee).

Ways to resolve it without involving others[edit]

In the case of rude or abrasive conduct by a user, the best option by far is to ignore the behavior and return attention to the content and article issue.

Ways to get wider opinions[edit]

Shortcut

You can obtain uninvolved informal views on various issues at the following pages:

Editor assistance Helps editors find someone experienced to provide you one-on-one advice and feedback. Designed to help you understand how to clearly and civilly express your views and work toward consensus. You may request an assistant's help at any time, whether you're involved in dispute resolution or not. Assistants can also help you find the best way to resolve your dispute or issue.
Third opinion Can provide third opinions in disputes involving only two editors.
WikiProject talk pages Can help in topic-related disputes by putting you in touch with other editors in that field. WikiProjects are informal teams collaborating on specific topics (such as Military history, Beer, Indian television, or Astronomy). Relevant WikiProject links can be found at the top of the article talk page or at the index.
Policy and guideline talk pages A good place to ask about a specific Wikipedia policy or guideline if you want to understand the basic principles. Note that these pages tend to be used to discuss the policy and proposed amendments, to enhance personal learning, and to discuss whether the policy wording is correct, rather than to resolve disputes. If you understand how the policy should work and believe another user is mis-using the policy or guideline, or you and another user disagree on the application of a policy or guideline, then a noticeboard is usually better if one exists.
Request for comment on a topic or issue A common way to resolve disputes. A concise explanation is given, and the RFC tag is attached to it. This highlights to other users that someone would like uninvolved users to attend the page and give comments, help, and insight. Request for comment can also be used on any matter needing "more eyeballs" or additional attendance (including proposals, templates, categories, policies and guidelines), it does not have to be used in a dispute.
Surveys of opinion Can help clarify views and concerns and test if consensus is likely. While a survey cannot generate consensus, it can be helpful in understanding to perceived issues and building a consensus. Similarly, if you believe that users are ignoring a consensus, a survey cannot force those users to accept your proposed consensus.

Surveys should not be undertaken lightly. Although a survey might assist users in understanding the balance of opinions and reasons for those opinions on a given dispute, it can also easily degenerate into an argument over whether a particular survey is fairly constructed or representative. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion for reasons why discussion is necessary and superior to voting.

Specialist noticeboards[edit]

Main page: Wikipedia:Noticeboards

Wikipedia's noticeboards are specialized pages that assist with a wide range of conduct and content issues. Editors can ask questions, draw attention to concerns, and request assistance from other independent editors familiar with the relevant policies and issues. Posting a message to a noticeboard can be an appropriate early step in resolving disputes on Wikipedia.

Noticeboards are best used for straightforward or urgent matters that are easily described to and considered by others. For complex issues or more intractable problems with an editor, the requests for comment process might also be considered.

Examples:

Click "show" to view descriptions of matters covered by some of these noticeboards

Other resources[edit]

The Wikipedia department directory may help find other pages that could help.

Mediation[edit]

Mediation involves you and the other person agreeing to ask a third party to help you both. It is completely without commitment; neither party can 'force' the other to mediation, and the mediator tries to ease them through working out their argument. Mediation can often help to resolve side issues or misunderstandings, as well as clean up bad blood and resolve disputes. Well worth trying.

Informal mediation involves asking other editors on an informal basis if they will help mediate the dispute. Sometimes editors who provide third opinions or respond to requests for comments may be willing to help if requested. The Mediation Cabal also assists in settling disputes and is a good place to learn dispute resolution techniques.

A formal mediation team also exists, the Mediation Committee. Mediation. Again this is a voluntary process in which a neutral person works with the parties to a dispute. The mediator helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone. When requesting formal mediation, be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute using the steps listed above, and that all parties to the dispute are in agreement to mediate. Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part. Formal mediation is only for disputes about article content, not user conduct.

Additional options available for conduct issues[edit]

You can often get much more accomplished at Wikipedia by acting appropriately ("by the book") yourself. By rising above uncivil comments, staying focussed on the task at hand, and forcing the uncivil editor to address the actual content or policy issue rather than engage then on a personal level, you force them to edit appropriately. If they do not then when you do need help, others will very clearly see how they have acted.

Conduct issues tend to be straightforward to handle provided you can keep cool and edit appropriately. All the methods described above are applicable. In addition you have other options. While some of these are informal, others are directly designed to lead to an end of the improper behavior.

If a matter is unlikely to resolve any other way, you are encouraged to seek help.

The general starting point is to follow the same processes as above. Sometimes it can be worth trying to dissuade the user in dialog first, but for unambiguous issues such as vandalism, edit warring/3RR, sock-puppetry, gross personal attacks, harassment, etc, an approach to the appropriate noticeboard is usually in order. If the user seems unlikely to respond to a request or the situation is difficult, then it is more likely you should request assistance at a suitable noticeboard. (See specialist noticeboards for a list). You can also use:

Administrator assistance Conduct issues that need administrator help can be presented at the administrators' incident noticeboard. Administrators can deal with disputes in many ways, from discussion and advice, through to warnings, blocks, or agreeing a ban.
  • The administrators' incident noticeboard is also a good place to get experienced eyeballs on a possible conduct problem and to quickly check whether or not administrators agree.
Request for comment on a user Unlike ordinary request for comment, this is a formal process. In it, you present evidence of concerns about a user's actions and editing approach, and request the community to review these and form an opinion. This, along with discussion at the Administrators' noticeboards, can often be the last step before formal action, if the concerns are not resolved.
Request for Arbitration This is the end of the line for dispute resolution. A user conduct issue or a dispute related to how users are interacting, that cannot be resolved any other way may be presented to the Arbitration Committee who will consider opening a case, reviewing the evidence, and ruling on what is to happen. Arbitrators do not look at issues of content, but only at whether editors are behaving appropriately. If the issue is decided by Arbitration, all parties involved will be expected to abide by the result.

The arbitrators will normally accept a case only if:

  • Other means have been tried (including usually, some or all of request for comment, mediation, or administrator assistance) and the issue has still failed to be resolved, or
  • The behavior is so unrelenting or the issue so divisive that all other approaches are likely to fail, or
  • It is unusually divisive even between administrators, or
  • There are privacy, harassment, or other sensitive issues that preclude other processes.
See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration guide

Sensitive and privacy-related issues[edit]

See: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia:CheckUser, Wikipedia:Oversight,Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:OTRS.

A small number of disputes involve sensitive or non-public information. These include issues where an Arbitrator, Checkuser or Oversighter has stated a privacy issue exists in the case, and disputes where there is a concern of a sensitive or private nature. Examples:

  • Non-public details - Issues where details and evidence are not accessible to all participants or to the community as a whole. This can also happen due to copyright or privacy reasons, BLP, or when the material is on an unsuitable external link;
  • "Outing" concerns - When discussion may in effect mean "outing", for example if there is a concern that a user is editing with a secret conflict of interest and the evidence would tend to identify them;
  • Serious matters - The issue involves legal concerns, harassment, or allegations that are very serious or perhaps defamatory;
  • Advice on divisive and sensitive issues - The issue may potentially be very divisive and advice is needed on how best to handle it. (sock-puppetry by an administrator is one example)

Disputes or issues of this kind should usually be referred to the functionaries mailing list or Arbitration Committee. In some cases it may be possible to seek advice from an uninvolved trusted administrator by IRC, email or other private means.

Actions tagged as CheckUser, Oversight, or OTRS[edit]

If such actions are disputed, they should initially be raised (by email if necessary) with the individual user concerned. Sometimes the relevant talk page or other wiki pages will have more details and these are always a good first place to check. If the matter cannot be resolved in this manner, then after a reasonable time they may need to be referred for review to Arbcom or the functionaries mailing list (for CheckUser and Oversight actions).

Ultimately, all English Wikipedia-based actions are open to the scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee, as the final stage of dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia, and as the body ultimately responsible for non-public information and privacy related issues on the wiki.

Urgent issues[edit]

If a user's conduct needs other urgent attention from an administrator, report it to the Administrators' Noticeboard. The Administrators' Noticeboard is not the place to raise disputes over content. Administrators are not referees.

Words of caution[edit]

Dispute resolution is sometimes used by editors to try to game the system. This generally backfires badly. Remember that dispute resolution mechanisms and policies are all ultimately there to enable editors to collaboratively write an encyclopedia – not to win personal or political battles.

See also: Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, Wikipedia:Gaming the system, Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ This is in order to ensure that content remains the creation of the community and not of some small group. Administrators have no special status in content creation.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:FT2/Dispute_resolution&oldid=731138077"